HCS : Experience losses still dependant on level difference
#21
Posted 09 April 2010 - 02:52
#22
Posted 09 April 2010 - 06:42
Extended hit range has so much potential for griefing and eventually more players will be in the higher ranges. Time will do its bidding, no need to open this can of worms.
+*thumbs up*
patience young padawans..the 5+/- should stay..
the ability to take xp from players below your level needs to be added..with some tweaks of course
#23
Posted 09 April 2010 - 07:16
The +/- 5 range is perfect as it is. Making it larger, especially at higher levels, simply promotes bridge trolls and prevents people from leveling past those players. 15 levels means you'll spend 30 levels in the troll's range and spend a month getting hit by him. This is a terrible idea.
First of all, you have no right to call 'bridge trolls' those that choose a certain level range to hover around, using stamina to just level up is an aspect of the game that should not be forced upon everyone..
The reason me -and apparently many more players- support the expanding of the +/- 5 range is that there are much fewer PvP targets up here compared to leve 300 and below..Low number of targets that hinders our ability to claim a better PVP ladder spot, our ability to hit for Prestige and -why not- ability to look for someone with too much gold on him and a false sense of safety..
Since risks from PvP have been made equal across the level range, so should PvP opportunities somehow.
IF there is an issue with a player being attacked repeatedly, which is very rare, thats what XP lock is for..
#24
Posted 09 April 2010 - 08:40
...and the bounty board.The +/- 5 range is perfect as it is. Making it larger, especially at higher levels, simply promotes bridge trolls and prevents people from leveling past those players. 15 levels means you'll spend 30 levels in the troll's range and spend a month getting hit by him. This is a terrible idea.
First of all, you have no right to call 'bridge trolls' those that choose a certain level range to hover around, using stamina to just level up is an aspect of the game that should not be forced upon everyone..
The reason me -and apparently many more players- support the expanding of the +/- 5 range is that there are much fewer PvP targets up here compared to leve 300 and below..Low number of targets that hinders our ability to claim a better PVP ladder spot, our ability to hit for Prestige and -why not- ability to look for someone with too much gold on him and a false sense of safety..
Since risks from PvP have been made equal across the level range, so should PvP opportunities somehow.
IF there is an issue with a player being attacked repeatedly, which is very rare, thats what XP lock is for..
[Signature removed]
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM
#25
Posted 09 April 2010 - 11:45
The +/- 5 range is perfect as it is. Making it larger, especially at higher levels, simply promotes bridge trolls and prevents people from leveling past those players. 15 levels means you'll spend 30 levels in the troll's range and spend a month getting hit by him. This is a terrible idea.
First of all, you have no right to call 'bridge trolls' those that choose a certain level range to hover around, using stamina to just level up is an aspect of the game that should not be forced upon everyone..
The reason me -and apparently many more players- support the expanding of the +/- 5 range is that there are much fewer PvP targets up here compared to leve 300 and below..Low number of targets that hinders our ability to claim a better PVP ladder spot, our ability to hit for Prestige and -why not- ability to look for someone with too much gold on him and a false sense of safety..
Since risks from PvP have been made equal across the level range, so should PvP opportunities somehow.
IF there is an issue with a player being attacked repeatedly, which is very rare, thats what XP lock is for..
I took the term from Gravely, it was no issue when he used it.
The problem is that a lot of range extension suggestions are simply going too far. 60+ level ranges is simply not reasonable.
#26
Posted 09 April 2010 - 12:02
some type of limitation in the amount of levels you can take from someone off the if the -/+=xp loss was put into place..especially if you are even thinking about opening up the attack range. that opens up a whole new possibility of destroying a player's levels when they are inactive or on vacation...
The Attacker can only drop someone 5 levels below their Virtual Level ..so im level 10(1% into the level) and your 5(also 1% into the level)..i can attack you but i can't take xp..if you were level 9(1% in) and i was 10(also 1% in), i could attack you till you were level 5(1% into the level) but then i wouldn't take anymore xp below that point..if i was 10 and you were 10, i could drop you to level 5 and couldn't do anymore damage after that.
when it gets tricky is if im level 5 and your 10..i could drop you till 5 but by what i suggested above, i could keep dropping you till zero..so potentially the max amount of levels you can take from someone is 10 levels if you are 5 below their VL. even though it might seem a lil rough and the lil loophole is still open to 'abuse' of someone's levels. atleast i can't drop my levels with your levels and continue to do so until i seem fit or you get back online :twisted: eventually taking 10+ or even 25+ levels if i decide to dedicate that much time to destroying one's character
something NEEDS to be done to put an end to the potential destruction of handfuls upon handfuls of levels..yes theres xp lock but now that its alot easier to take down someone below level 100, xp lock's price isn't something they should have to worry about to protect them. there needs to be a system put into place to only limit 5 levels(10 levels) taken from someone outside the bounty.
The max amount of levels lost on the bounty board is 5 and it should be the same off the board as well
*please point out things that dont work with or more potential 'abuse'/'loopholes' with the above system* i just woke up and my brains not moving too fast yet
How about it gets changed back? or maybe even change it so ppl can't lose levels as easily? i mean really? it takes me like 25 stamina to get 1% XP, someone hits me 2x for that same amount of stamina and i lose 2x the XP, when a 100-stam hit before only took like 2%, how fair is this nonsense????
#27
Posted 09 April 2010 - 12:39
lower lvl's had it too easy until now. and its still too easy, if you knew what higher lvl's been trough, how it is now is NOTHING in compare.
#28
Posted 09 April 2010 - 13:24
I took the term from Gravely, it was no issue when he used it.
The problem is that a lot of range extension suggestions are simply going too far. 60+ level ranges is simply not reasonable.
I must have missed him mentioning it, its unacceptable regardless where it comes from because we cant condemn a way to play the game..
As for range extension, think of it this way..I would like to have similar number of people available to attack regardless of being level 400 or 800..Higher level should not come with less PvP activity. And stat differences as levels increase are not that dramatic that would justify the 5 level range 'protection'.
#29
Posted 09 April 2010 - 13:26
people whine because its not good for them, noone thinks whats good for the game :?
#30
fs_gravely
Posted 09 April 2010 - 15:18
I took the term from Gravely, it was no issue when he used it.
The problem is that a lot of range extension suggestions are simply going too far. 60+ level ranges is simply not reasonable.
Bridge trolls are...bridge trolls :wink:
I'm turning into one, lol. The only problem with trolls was that prior to this update, low level versions were virtually immune. Now they have to take their licks like the rest of us.
60 levels would be too much. I think the maximum is 30, and that should be reserved for the current top 500 or so players.
#31
fs_gravely
Posted 09 April 2010 - 15:19
#32
fs_littlejom
Posted 09 April 2010 - 15:29
First of all, you have no right to call 'bridge trolls' those that choose a certain level range to hover around, using stamina to just level up is an aspect of the game that should not be forced upon everyone..
First of all, you have no right to tell someone else their opinion is wrong.
Second of all... where are the kids being bullied in the playground that are crying because they were called a name? People can be so damn sensitive. Call me every name in the book and I'll just laugh, perhaps even congratulate you on knowing each word.
Perhaps fallensword is true to it's name, when I think of a sword it symbolizes strength and power, fallensword would suggest it is for a bunch of wussies.
#33
Posted 09 April 2010 - 18:18
First of all, you have no right to call 'bridge trolls' those that choose a certain level range to hover around, using stamina to just level up is an aspect of the game that should not be forced upon everyone..
First of all, you have no right to tell someone else their opinion is wrong.
Second of all... where are the kids being bullied in the playground that are crying because they were called a name? People can be so damn sensitive. Call me every name in the book and I'll just laugh, perhaps even congratulate you on knowing each word.
Perhaps fallensword is true to it's name, when I think of a sword it symbolizes strength and power, fallensword would suggest it is for a bunch of wussies.
Isnt the forum supposed to be about expressing opinions and being ready to see people disagree with them?
But i am not talking about bullying. I am talking about it being wrong to call people names because they choose to play the game in a certain way..Dont expect them to come shouting in here because they are offended, most are better than that
#34
lostviking
Posted 09 April 2010 - 18:23
#35
fs_gravely
Posted 09 April 2010 - 18:24
It's not inherently wrong, but that is the technical definition of a bridge troll
Once again, keep in mind the term can and has been applied to me :wink:
#36
lostviking
Posted 09 April 2010 - 18:27
No offense, max, but what would you call players that stop in a level range and prey on passersby, and level only to maintain their position?
It's not inherently wrong, but that is the technical definition of a bridge troll![]()
Once again, keep in mind the term can and has been applied to me :wink:
Ahh if its the preying on passerby's that constitutes a bridge troll, then I have misclassified myself. I've just found that this level is best for my passion, the Bounty Board :twisted:
#37
fs_gravely
Posted 09 April 2010 - 18:38
No offense, max, but what would you call players that stop in a level range and prey on passersby, and level only to maintain their position?
It's not inherently wrong, but that is the technical definition of a bridge troll![]()
Once again, keep in mind the term can and has been applied to me :wink:
Ahh if its the preying on passerby's that constitutes a bridge troll, then I have misclassified myself. I've just found that this level is best for my passion, the Bounty Board :twisted:
So you don't indulge in gold hits? ever?
#38
Posted 09 April 2010 - 19:19
some type of limitation in the amount of levels you can take from someone off the if the -/+=xp loss was put into place..especially if you are even thinking about opening up the attack range. that opens up a whole new possibility of destroying a player's levels when they are inactive or on vacation...
The Attacker can only drop someone 5 levels below their Virtual Level ..so im level 10(1% into the level) and your 5(also 1% into the level)..i can attack you but i can't take xp..if you were level 9(1% in) and i was 10(also 1% in), i could attack you till you were level 5(1% into the level) but then i wouldn't take anymore xp below that point..if i was 10 and you were 10, i could drop you to level 5 and couldn't do anymore damage after that.
when it gets tricky is if im level 5 and your 10..i could drop you till 5 but by what i suggested above, i could keep dropping you till zero..so potentially the max amount of levels you can take from someone is 10 levels if you are 5 below their VL. even though it might seem a lil rough and the lil loophole is still open to 'abuse' of someone's levels. atleast i can't drop my levels with your levels and continue to do so until i seem fit or you get back online :twisted: eventually taking 10+ or even 25+ levels if i decide to dedicate that much time to destroying one's character
something NEEDS to be done to put an end to the potential destruction of handfuls upon handfuls of levels..yes theres xp lock but now that its alot easier to take down someone below level 100, xp lock's price isn't something they should have to worry about to protect them. there needs to be a system put into place to only limit 5 levels(10 levels) taken from someone outside the bounty.
The max amount of levels lost on the bounty board is 5 and it should be the same off the board as well
*please point out things that dont work with or more potential 'abuse'/'loopholes' with the above system* i just woke up and my brains not moving too fast yet
How about it gets changed back? or maybe even change it so ppl can't lose levels as easily? i mean really? it takes me like 25 stamina to get 1% XP, someone hits me 2x for that same amount of stamina and i lose 2x the XP, when a 100-stam hit before only took like 2%, how fair is this nonsense????
how about we just allow me to take xp from players below my level and limit me in taking a max of five levels from a single player off the board
#39
Posted 09 April 2010 - 19:27
While it is fine and dandy to try to have as many players accessible in the higher ranges as in lower ones, the level range would be excessively large and could get quite problematic with the aforementioned class of players or simple griefing. Getting 10 levels (assuming 5 +/-) at level level 100 takes a whopping 6000 stamina worth of leveling, while getting 30 levels (15 +/-) at level 700 takes 75000 stamina. While it is a fine goal to want higher players to have as much access to PvP as lower level ones, but effectively doing x12 to the allowable time for griefing isn't conducive to equality between high and low level players.
#40
lostviking
Posted 09 April 2010 - 19:36
No offense, max, but what would you call players that stop in a level range and prey on passersby, and level only to maintain their position?
It's not inherently wrong, but that is the technical definition of a bridge troll![]()
Once again, keep in mind the term can and has been applied to me :wink:
Ahh if its the preying on passerby's that constitutes a bridge troll, then I have misclassified myself. I've just found that this level is best for my passion, the Bounty Board :twisted:
So you don't indulge in gold hits? ever?
Honestly? No. At least not in the past month or so.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

